Pro-family groups said yesterday that President Bush "drove a wedge" into their efforts to protect marriage by seeming to accept homosexual civil unions, even as he said he could support an amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and woman.

"We're encouraged the administration appears to be embracing that centrist stance," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, one of the key backers of the amendment now pending. "The president's statements today reflect where most Americans are on this issue."

Bush is crystal clear: he is not going to come out against people being able to set up legal agreements with each other, something that they can do now.

The Gary Bauers and Robert Knights of the world see even the status quo as a threat to heterosexual marriage, and, of course, they're just being hysterical.

"Civil unions" is essentially a legal issue, and can be done now. The radical right is just trying to grab on to an issue, since Bush supports the Federal Marriage Amendment.

It's crystal clear that he's trying to avoid discussion of family policy issues until after the election. The partisans have screwed up family policy really, really badly -- and there's a lot of corruption involved -- they're hopin' and prayin' and wishin' that none of it comes out during the campaigns.

"We need clear leadership in a time of judicial tyranny, not politicians who don't have the spine to stand up for something as basic as marriage," said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute.

How DARE Knight ask for clarity from President Bush! Doesn't he know he's supposed to salute at everything Bush does? Doesn't he read freerepublic?

Bush is crystal clear: he is not going to come out against people being able to set up legal agreements with each other, something that they can do now.

Well, that isn't correct - - most states don't now allow "civil unions." (Howard Dean's Vermont does, and I guess Bush is OK with that). But of course, you're right that we shouldn't criticize anything Bush does or says, so bravo for putting this criticizer in his place. Doesn't he read freerepublic? Doesn't he know that Bush is not to be criticized? Where does he get off?

Well, that isn't correct - - most states don't now allow "civil unions."

Exactly what Bush said is that this is a state issue (marriage licenses are issued by the state, after all) unless they come down on the side of homosexual marriage, then he'll make it the FedGov's business to clarify the definition of a marriage. Sounds clear enough to me, unless you are one of those that thinks the FedGov ought to interfere in state's rights.

But he also said he will leave to states "whatever legal arrangements people want to make." Asked specifically about civil unions, he said it is a state issue "unless judicial rulings undermine the sanctity of marriage."

That left many conservatives and pro-family groups wondering just how far the president is willing to go.

"What the president said is confusing, and some will find it hard to distinguish from Howard Dean, who supported domestic partnerships in Vermont at the state level," said Gary Bauer, president of American Values, a conservative interest group.

--------

-----

Bottom line: the prez said civil unions are OK with him, as long as states- such as Dean's -- do it. I'm sorry you can't spin that fact away, but facts are stubborn things.

"The Gary Bauers and Robert Knights of the world see even the status quo as a threat to heterosexual marriage, and, of course, they're just being hysterical."

The Gary Bauers of the world understand that you can't deal with the devil and give him half of what he wants - for two reasons. (1). Even half of what he wants is bad for society, (2). Evil will never be satisfied with any half measure, it will continue to push and drive for its dark agenda.

And what "status quo" are you referring to? State recognition of homosexual pervert "unions" is a new-age innovation, never before seen in any society except, perhaps, for the chimpanzee culture in the mountains of Zimbabwe.

Allowing same-sex "unions" accomplishes the exact same thing as a fully acknowleged marriage, for all intents and purposes. It puts the American seal of approval on blatant, overt sodomy, opens the doors ever wider to allow these scumbags to adopt and corrupt little children, and it forces American taxpayers to support these twisted pigs with health plans and other benefits.

The status quo you refer to is the one being overthrown by these deviants and their ignorant supporters.

If the federal government began intervening in legal arrangements between consenting adults, you'd howl like a stuck pig!

Sorry, but I support a constitutional amendment that would ban marriage btw men and men, and women and women, and would also ban same-sex marriage under any other name, including "civil unions," because people who are granted these "unions" in one state can go to another state and try to get them honored there.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.